text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
The Act begins with the general principles that all meetings of public bodies should be open to the public and that all public records should be open to citizen inspection. However, the Act creates a number of specific exemptions from these general rules of openness, but requires those exemptions to be construed and applied narrowly.
Show All Answers
The act is the primary state law governing citizen access to records of public entities and to their meeting.
All requests must include the name and address of the requestor and the request must be reasonably specific. A telephone number and/or email address is not required, but is useful. The day after the FOIA Officer or County employee receives the request is considered the first day of the five working day response period. The five day period does not include weekends or holidays. A request for records can be sent through the website via the online form, through the mail, or by email to the FOIA Officer.
Anyone can make a FOIA request; however, the law applies to requests made by any Virginia citizen and any non-resident representative of a newspaper, radio station, or television station that is circulated in or broadcasts in Virginia.
There is no cost required to submit a FOIA request. However, FOIA allows local governments to make a reasonable charge to cover its actual cost to access, search for, duplicate, and supply requested records. It is the goal of the County to keep the cost as low as possible. The requestor may ask for an advance estimate of the charges for complying with the request. If charges are expected to exceed $200, the County may require the requestor to pay the estimated charges in advance, before the request is processed. Any unpaid balances past due for more than 30 days after billing must be paid before the County will fulfill any future requests.
The Act only requires disclosure of existing records. It does not require any public body to create a new record or report that does not already exist. A request for records does not include a situation where a citizen is asking questions for the County to answer. Only a request for particular documents or other specific existing records triggers the requirements of a response under the Act.
The County must initially respond within five work days after the custodian of the records receives the request. If the request is large or complex and it is not possible to produce the records within the five working days, the County can invoke a seven-day extension (working days). The day after the FOIA Officer or County employee receives the request is considered the first day of the five-working-day response period. The five-day period does not include weekends or holidays.
Requestors should provide as much specific information about the records as possible. If a request is not specific the Custodian or FOIA Officer may need to contact the requestor the further clarify the information requested. The requestor's contact information and preferred method of receiving the records is also needed.
The Act lists over 120 categories of public records that public bodies are not required to disclose. The County commonly withholds records subject to the following exemptions: 1) personnel records (Code of VA 2.2-3705.1); 2) written advice of legal counsel to eh public body or the officers or employees of the public body and any other information protected by the attorney-client privilege (Code of VA 2.2-3705.2); 3) legal memoranda and other work product compiled specifically for use in litigation concerning a matter that is properly the subject of a closed meeting (Code of VA 2.2-3705.3); 4) records recorded in or compiled exclusively for use in closed meetings lawfully held pursuant to the Code of VA (Code of VA 2.2-3705.5); 5) vendor proprietary information software (Code of VA 2.2-3705.6); 6) information relating to the negotiation and award of a specific contract where competition or bargaining is involved (Code of VA 2.2-3705.12). All other exemptions provided for under the Act may be exercised by the County if deemed lawful and appropriate.
FOIA does not require that requests be in writing, nor does the request need to specifically state that the requestor is requesting records under FOIA. The County provides an online form, which is helpful in fulfilling the request. A request can also be sent to the FOIA Officer by email. The completed form or email must include the date, the name and address of the requestor and specific information about the public record that is being requested. A telephone number and email address are very useful to expedite questions and clarifications while satisfying a FOIA request, yet, they are not required.
Requestors may submit a FOIA request the following ways: 1) the online form; 2) by email to the FOIA Officer; 3) by mailing or hand delivering a letter to the FOIA Officer at the County Government Center, 103 South Court Street, Suite F, Luray, VA 22835; 4) by calling 540-743-4142; or 5) by fax to the FOIA Officer at 540-743-4533.


text:
In an [October 2010] interview with the National Journal [the Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader] Senator [Mitch] McConnell was asked what "the job" of Republicans will be if they gain a majority in Congress. McConnell's response was,Ryan Witt, "Republican leader says GOP's number one goal is defeating Obama in 2012," Examiner.com, October 25, 2010.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
McConnell could have mentioned any one of a number of other priorities . . . Helping the country recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; Protecting the country from another terrorist attack; [or] Ensuring the success of the United States' missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, McConnell made clear that the Republicans will be thinking about 2012 as soon as the 2010 midterm elections are over. [emphasis supplied]
This was scarcely a casual slip of the tongue. "N2K Top 10: Let Me Repeat; Regrets? Not a One," National Journal, November 4, 2010 ("Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will deliver a speech at the Heritage Foundation that reiterates why making President Obama a one-term president is the GOP's top priority.").
Although the National Journal article containing the initial interview with McConnell does not appear to be available to the public on the magazine's Web site, the quote has been widely reported -- including in subsequent National Journal articles. Matthew Cooper, "Kaine, Axelrod Fire Back After McConnell's NJ Comments," National Journal, October 26, 2010 ("My colleague, Major Garrett, made news with his interview with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in which the Kentuckian said that making Obama a one-term president was his highest priority. Now Democrats are firing back. DNC Chairman Tim Kaine has issued a statement saying: '. . . the very man who set his Republican colleagues on a course of politically motivated obstruction even before the President was sworn into office -- is promising two more years of politics as usual . . ..'"); see also the related, Major Garrett, "After the Wave; Mitch McConnell wants to learn from history, but his new recruits will not be easily led," National Journal, October 23, 2010; Peter Baker, "Obama Forces Showdown With G.O.P. on Arms Pact," New York Times, November 19, 2010, p. A12 ("Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has said his top priority is to deny Mr. Obama a second term.").
Nor is the mission limited to this one Republican leader. The campaign of one of the Republicans' leading presidential candidates, Congresswoman Michelle Backman, has declared "Rep. Bachmann looks forward to working with the Governor [of Alaska, Sarah Palin] for the common goal of making sure President Obama is a one-term President." Elspeth Reeve, "Palin Rivalry Becomes Bachmann Campaign Strategy," National Journal, June 10, 2011.
Now I do not question the right of what the British call "the loyal opposition" to disagree with whomever happens to be the President of the United States regarding particular legislative and other proposals and programs -- including wars. That's politics, that's democracy, that's governing.
But when the opposition, the party that does not control the White House, declares that "the single most important thing we want to achieve" is for the President's administration to fail, for him to be a one-term president, this risks crossing the line from politics as usual into potentially treasonous territory. When one's "most important" goal is to cause someone to fail, however unseemly if focused on any fellow human, but that someone happens to be the President of the United States, it is in effect a goal to bring on the failure of the United States itself -- as we have seen during the last couple of weeks with regard to the debt ceiling. Not incidentally, President Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and President George Bush seven times, with very little if any hoopla from Democrats.
At a minimum, the Republicans' acknowledgement of their "most important thing" calls into question every statement made by the Republican leadership, every legislative proposal, every vote they call for, every filibuster they threaten, every meeting they walk out of, and every charge they level at President Obama. Is it driven by the substance involved, or is it just another tactic in their strategy of presidential failure?
Am I charging some Republicans with a literal violation of our prohibitions of "treason"? No, of course not. Why "of course"? Because Article III, Section 3, of our Constitution was deliberately drafted to define "treason" much more narrowly than its dictionary definition. The Constitution declares that "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." From inside the White House, the Republicans' shelling may sound and feel like "war," but it's not what the Constitution's drafters had in mind.
No, I am speaking of "treason" in its more general dictionary usage:
"1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign."Treason," Dictionary.com.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense."
At the outset, there is something troubling about candidates for federal office running against "government" -- as Grover Norquist puts it, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." [Photo credit: Wikipedia.org.]
I certainly support efforts to review government expenditures -- as I did as U.S. Maritime Administrator. Let us challenge what we're spending through the Defense Department (given that there have been retired admirals and generals who say more defense budget cuts could actually improve our national security), earmarks, the shockingly low tax rates for America's wealthiest 1% (who have more wealth than the bottom 90%), hidden corporate tax breaks and subsidies, and so forth.
But to refuse to provide a clean increase in the debt ceiling, as we've routinely done dozens of times before, to insist on cutting food, medical and other benefits for the poor, to refuse to ask for a dime's worth of increased revenue from the wealthy, and to be willing to bring down the global economy and the full faith and credit of the United States for the first time in over 200 years -- all in the cause of defeating an incumbent president -- does qualify, it seems to me, under the dictionary (though not the constitutional) definition of treason.
Why? Consider:
It is "acting to . . . harm . . . its sovereign [the president]," "a violation of allegiance," "the betrayal of a trust" [to "uphold the Constitution," to serve the American people and "the public interest"], "disloyalty to one's . . . government," an "attempt to . . . impair the well-being of a state," and it has certainly involved "speech . . . calculated to bring [the government and its president] into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection." Indeed, that would seem to be the laser focus of the drumbeat of attack provided by the Republicans' television and radio propaganda arms (Fox "News," Rush Limbaugh, et al).
Hopefully, the American people will reflect on the Republicans' behavior this past two and one-half years, and we'll be rid of the lot by November of 2012. But given the number of voters who are seemingly willing to give higher priority to "social issues" over even their own best economic interests, the outcome remains to be seen.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Yeah it looks pretty, but you don't have to clean it.
The back-kitchen / laundry / scullery / workroom / conservatory / toolshed at my parents' house hadn't really been tidied since my father died – or indeed many years before. I was not looking forward to this.
But it's a revelation, literally. The last time this wall was fully visible it was the 1990s. Ever since it's been obscured by "temporary" shelves – and the crap that inevitably accumulated on them. Stuff in jars and tins, mostly. Nuts, screws, washers, and bolts. So many, many different sorts of nail.
I'm slightly amazed to see the stonework properly again. Ideally I'd take this opportunity to repoint it, but there's only so much summer and a lot of jobs to do. So many, many jobs. I've a range and a washstand to restore, a home Ethernet/satellite network to complete, two websites to design, a laptop to refurbish and an entire programming language (JavaScript) to learn before college starts again in little more than a month. Hmm… To finish this job alone, I'm going to have to sort out all the tools. That may not sound too fearsome, until you realise how many, many kinds of tools there are. Two entire sets of spanners and sockets (my Dad's old imperial and my metric one – there's a generational change), plumbing tools, wood tools, electrical tools, car tools, power tools, gardening tools, broken tools. All these have to be separated out. And where do gas fittings go? Welding rods? We don't even have an arc welder any more.
A lot has to go. Two generations of male "But it's useful!" thinking has its consequences. If you click on the picture to zoom in you'll see a thing that looks like a green raygun. That's a car timing strobe. I don't think anyone even makes a car with mechanical timing any more. It will be a wrench though. Each bit will be a wrench. I hauled out a fridge today, one that my father once cannily converted into a chest freezer by the simple expedient of laying it on its back. It's a strange shade of pale blue-green inside, it was made in Italy, and it's probably the first fridge I ever saw. And I'm going to send it to a dump.
I came across a pair of metal… things. Just matching stamped pieces of steel. I do not know what they are, what they were once part of. Beyond some educated guesswork based on their shape, I don't know what they are meant to do. But I know they're important. The one thing I do recall about them is that at some point they were the key to a problem I wrestled with. A long-forgotten problem. How can you throw away something like that?
OK, just me then.
But the space must be made. Firstly, so that there is some chance of ever finding a thing. Because at the moment it's organised on the principle "A place for everything, and everything in that place". Secondly, so that there's some space in this space. Because this is actually a great space. (Now I'm an interior designer I'm forbidden to use the word "room".) The light is extremely good. All right, the transparent roof makes it too hot to breathe in during summer, and the gap between that roof and the top of the wall makes it icy in winter. But for… the many, many days between this could be a good place. Not just for storage and drying laundry, but to work or relax in.
Wonder can I bring the Ethernet out here.
Related articles
- Dogbone Wrench – handier than a socket set (boingboing.net)
- Make Your Own DIY Toolkit (planitdiy.com)


text:
Is a picture worth a thousand words?
Posted by David Payne | Categories: Academia, Blog, Communication, Mobility, Multimedia, Research
Translating the results of a research project into a 10-minute presentation or article can be a difficult task. It must be informative but also succinct and appealing. It has to tell an interesting story. It has to entertain. And you shouldn't have too much text. Read more


text:
Derby #165: The Scientific Method
Hey, this Derby's over. When you're finished reliving past glories, check out what's going on in the Derby right now. It's probably even cooler. Or at least newer.
Sometimes in life when you want answers, you've got to find them yourself. Almost every idiot knows you can't just cite Wikipedia, so sometimes you've got to get your hands dirty with a little scientific experimentation to get your explanation. This week, show us your take on the Scientific Method. Maybe you'll attest to the value of repeatable results, show us an experiment in motion, or just cram a beaker onto a cute fuzzy animal design and say, "IT'S TOTALLY SCIENCE!" Of course the Scientific Method is all about rules, like our omnipresent rule about not "borrowing" copyrighted works or trademarked characters, so here are yours:
No text. You can use numbers and mathematic equations.
No video games.
No Star Wars.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
[185 U.S. 83, 84] This is an appeal from the court of claims. The claimant, Frederick Rodgers, a rear admiral of the line of the Navy, brought suit to recover the sum of $3,358,13, which he claims as the balance due him on account of pay and allowances for the period between March 3, 1899, and March 2, 1901. The claim is founded upon the law of Congress known as the 'navy personnel act,' which was approved on March 3, 1899, and entitled 'An Act to Reorganize and Increase the Efficiency of the Personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps of the United States.' 30 Stat. at L. 1004, chap. 413.
The applicable sections are 7 and 13, which, omitting irrelevant portions, read:
By 1466 of the Revised Statutes of the United States it was, among other things, provided:
... * *
The findings show that the claimant was appointed and commissioned a rear admiral on March 3, 1899. From that date until March 2, 1901, he was one of the rear admirals 'embraced in the nine lower numbers of that grade.' He served on shore from March 3, 1899, to February 13, 1901, and for the rest of the time at sea. While at sea he received the same pay as was [185 U.S. 83, 86] allowed a brigadier general in the Army,' and while on shore he received pay at the same rate less 15 per cent, together with commutation in lieu of allowance of quarters. Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States (36 Ct. Cl. 266), from which judgment the claimant took this appeal.
Messrs. James H. Hayden and Joseph K. McCammon for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. John Q. Thompson for appellee.
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:
This case involves a mere question of statutory construction. The matter of military and naval salaries is one exclusively within the control of Congress. The courts may neither increase nor decrease them, correct any supposed inequalities, nor in any manner set aside or modify the action of the legislative branch of the government in respect thereto. If there be inequality, injustice, it can be corrected alone by Congress, and the courts may not interfere.
The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature. Whenever that is apparent it dominates and interprets the language used. But when the intent is a debatable question, and there is nothing on the face of the statute which clearly indicates such intent, there are certain minor and subsidiary rules by which courts are guided in determining the true construction.
In the case at bar neither the words of the statute nor the circumstances and conditions of this legislation make perfectly clear the intent of Congress. If we look alone upon 13, we may well conclude that Congress had one thought in its mind, while if we turn to 7 another and somewhat different intent is apparent. Section 13 suggests a complete parallel in the matter of pay between all the officers of the Navy and those of the Army according to their several ranks. Sec- [185 U.S. 83, 87] tion 7, on the other hand, points to a special exception in respect to one half the officers of a certain rank in the Navy. The ingenious and plausible arguments made by counsel on the respective sides clearly show that it is a debatable question whether Congress intended that after the 1st of July, 1899, there should be only one uniform rule controlling the pay of all the respective officers of the Army and the Navy, or whether as to one half of the rear admirals a different rule was contemplated. Under those circumstances of doubt we turn to other rules of statutory construction.
Before noticing them it is well to understand exactly the contentions of the parties. The claimant insists that the first proviso in 7 establishes a complete but temporary rule for the payment of the nine lower members of the grade of rear admiral; that no provisions of other sections of this statute, or of any other statute, limit or qualify the right of the nine junior rear admirals to the full pay given by statute to a brigadier general. On the other hand, the government contends that the proviso is subject to the general rule which obtains in respect to all other naval officers, of a 15 per cent difference between the pay when on shore duty and that when at sea. Again, the claimant insists that by 13, after the 30th day of June, 1899, all rear admirals became entitled to the pay and allowances of major generals in the army, and that the proviso in 7, in respect to the nine junior rear admirals, was temporary in its nature, and expired on the 30th of June, 1899; while the government contends that the distinction between the nine senior and the nine junior rear admirals is a permanent provision, and did not cease to have force on the 30th of June, 1899
It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and nor expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute. In other words, where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general,-the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special,-the fact that the one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as re- [185 U.S. 83, 88] maining an exception to the general, and the general will not be understood as repealing the special, unless a repeal is expressly named, or unless the provisions of the general are manifestly inconsistent with those of the special. In Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 , 570, sub nom. Re Kang-Gi-Shun-Ca, 27 L. ed. 1030, 1035, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396, 405, this court said:
In Black on Interpretation of Laws, 116, the proposition is thus stated:
So, in Sedgwick on the Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law, the author observes, on page 98, with respect to this rule:
And in Crane v. Reeder, 22 Mich. 322, 334, Mr. Justice Christiancy, speaking for the supreme court of that state, said:
Both the textbooks and the opinion just quoted city many supporting authorities.
In the light of this canon, how should these two sections be construed? Section 7 in effect abolishes the rank of commodore, at least so far as respects the active list of the line of the Navy, and lifts those in that rank to that of rear admiral. The attention of Congress was thus directed to such change and the proper accompanying provisions in respect to salary and otherwise, and it declared that the lower nine rear admirals, they who were by the section lifted to that rank, should receive a particular salary. Clearly that was a special provision in respect to a matter to which the attention of Congress was at the time directed. If another statute had been passed at a subsequent or on the same day making general provision for the salaries of naval officers, clearly the canon to which we have referred would apply. A fortiori, when the subsequent general provision is in the same statute it should be held applicable. So, when in 13 Congress prescribed a general rule for the salaries of naval officers, such general rule cannot, within the scope of this canon, be understood as repealing the special provision in the prior section, but the special provision must be taken as an exception to and limitation of the general rule. [185 U.S. 83, 90] But it is said that harmony between the two may be obtained by limiting the operation of the special provision to the period between the passage of the act and the 30th of June following. But that necessitates adding something to the words of the special provision, so that it shall read that from the date of the act until the 30th of June following such should be the rule in respect to the salaries of the recently promoted commodores. But the same harmony can be obtained by adding to the general provision a clause like this: Except in respect to the nine lower numbers of the grade of rear admiral. In either case the harmony is secured by adding some words of qualification, and the rule, as we have seen, is to the effect that the additional words of qualification are to be put to the general provision rather than to the special.
It is urged that the provision in 7 was intended to merely fill out the present fiscal year, and that Congress meant by this legislation to start the new fiscal year, July 1, 1899, with one general rule of equality between the pay of officers of the Navy and that of officers of the Army. There might have been some force in this suggestion if the pay of the nine lower rear admirals had been continued through the balance of the year the same as it was at the date of the passage of the act. But all of them, whether commodores or captains, were by this special provision given an increase of pay. So Congress was not simply continuing salaries, but was making special provisions for the nine lower numbers of the grade of rear admirals, giving them an increase of pay over that which they had previously received.
Another matter worthy of notice is this: Prior to the act of March 3, 1899, the corresponding ranks of officers of the Navy and the Army were rear admiral and major general, commodore, and brigadier general, captain, and colonel. By that act the rank of commodore was abolished, although that of brigadier general was undisturbed. No change was made in the relative rank of captain and colonel, or of rear admiral and major general, but the legislation left one rank in the Army to which there was no corresponding rank in the Navy. The statute in effect lifted the rank in the Navy which was corresponding to [185 U.S. 83, 91] that of brigadier general in the Army to that of rear admiral, and corresponding with that of major general in the Army. The individuals thus raised in rank were not so raised on account of distinguished services or for any personal reason, but simply in consequence of the abolition of the official rank they had held. Is it unreasonable to believe that Congress thought it unwise to give to those officers (who had neither by length of service or by personal distinction become entitled to the position of rear admiral, as it had stood in the past) all the benefits of such position? Would it be unnatural for Congress to bear in mind those who by length of service or by personal distinction had already earned the position, and provide that in, at least, the matter of pay there should be some recognition of the fact? Again, is it unreasonable to believe that Congress intended that those officers whose past services placed them according to the prior relative rank side by side with brigadier generals of the army, should not by a mere change of statute be given a benefit in salary which was not at the same time accorded to brigadier generals in the Army? May not this explain its action in so dividing the rear admirals into two classes,-one composed substantially of former rear admirals, equal both in rank and pay with major generals in the Army, and the other of those who in the past were only commodores, to whom was given the rank of rear admirals, but the pay of brigadier generals in the Army?
Still another matter may be mentioned. The second proviso of 7 reads:
There is no similar clause in 13. Why should Congress in 7 make provision for the rank and pay of certain officers who during the ensuing four months might be charged with certain duties, and omit any such provision in prescribing salaries generally and permanently? Is it not reasonable to believe that Congress intended this as a special pro- [185 U.S. 83, 92] vision which should continue after the 30th of June, 1899, and as a permanent rule for the cases named?
These considerations certainly tend to support the conclusion which follows from enforcing the well-recognized canon of corstruction in respect to special and general statutes. We think the court of claims was correct when it said:
The further question is whether the provision in 7, that the rear admirals embraced in the nine lower numbers of that grade should receive such pay and allowances as were given to brigadier generals, was intended to be absolute and exclusive, practically ignoring the general rule in respect to naval service of a difference between the pay of officers doing shore duty and that of those at sea? When there has been a long- established rule of difference in the compensation for the two kinds of services; when that rule is expressly recognized and continued in this same statute, as it is in 13; when it is not in terms excluded in 7,- it would be going too far to hold it inapplicable to the salary provided for by 7. In other words, it is not to be believed that Congress by that section carved out a salary which in all respects ignored the general rules pertaining to salaries of naval officers. It is rather to be believed that only the amount was fixed, and that otherwise it was to be in harmony with and subordinate to any and all general provisions. We are of opinion that the court of claims was right in its conclusions in this respect.
It may be conceded that the questions we have been considering are not free from doubt, and much may be said in favor of the view opposed to that we have taken. Inasmuch as Congress has full control over the matter of salaries it can at any time appropriate to these officers such a sum as will make their [185 U.S. 83, 93] salaries that which they contend was intended by the act of March 3, 1899. It is not a case in which the judicial decision must necessarily be a finality, but one in which there is full power on the part of Congress to correct any mistake which may have been made.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Gray took no part in the decision of this case.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 185 U.S. 83
Docket No: No. 317
Argued: February 26, 1902
Decided: April 07, 1902
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) |
Funding Opportunity Title |
Imaging - Science Track Award for Research Transition (I/START) [R03] |
Activity Code |
R03 Small Grant Program |
Announcement Type |
Reissue of PAR-09-073 |
Related Notices
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
Companion FOA |
None |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.279 |
FOA Purpose |
This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) issued by the National Institute on Drug Abuse encourages Small Research Grant (R03) applications to facilitate the entry of investigators to the area of neuroimaging, including both new investigators and established investigators seeking to adopt neuroimaging methodologies in their research programs. The R03 is intended to support small research projects that can be carried out in a short period of time with limited resources. |
Posted Date |
December 21, 2011 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
January 16, 2012 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
30 days prior to the application due date |
Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
Scientific Merit Review |
Standard dates apply |
Advisory Council Review |
Standard dates apply |
Earliest Start Date(s) |
Standard dates apply |
Expiration Date |
New Date: May 08, 2015 per NOT-DA-15-054;
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
This FOA will allow for study design and collection of "proof of concept" brain imaging data that can then be used in the transition to more extensive research applications. The I/START program uses a brief application form that is intended to allow for the description of an application to generate preliminary drug abuse brain imaging data. Funding is limited to direct costs for one year of up to $150,000 per year and is non-renewable.
All areas of research dealing with the clinical neurobiology of drug abuse and addiction and encompassing a wide array of research studies that incorporate brain imaging are sought under this announcement. Areas of interest that would allow preliminary data to be obtained within the I/START time and budget requirements include, but are not limited to: (a) the neurobiology of addiction and the assessment of structural, functional or chemical alterations due to drug abuse and the addiction process; (b) neurobiological effects on development/maturation due to prenatal, child or adolescent drug exposure; (c) neural mechanisms underlying cognitive processes that are altered by drugs of abuse; (d) neurobiological mechanisms underlying brain reward, motivated behaviors, and related processes; (e) neural mechanisms of cognitive or behavioral processes that may contribute to the initiation, progression/maintenance, or relapse to drug abuse/addiction; (f) neurobiological basis of individual differences in response to drug of abuse including differences in transition from drug use to addiction; (g) assessment of neurobiological changes resulting from pharmacological and/or behavioral treatment for drug abuse/addiction; (h) neurobiological and neurobehavioral factors underlying comorbid mental and addictive disorders; (i) characterization of interactions between drug abuse/addiction and HIV infection in the brain; and (j) neurobiological processes involved in human pain and analgesia.
It is important to note that research proposed under the I/START program need not be conducted in drug-abusing populations or involve drug administration; however, the potential relevance to understanding drug abuse must be clearly delineated.
Funding Instrument |
Grant |
Application Types Allowed |
New |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations, and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. |
Award Budget |
Budgets for direct costs of up to $150,000 per year and is for a period of one year only. |
Award Project Period |
One year only. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply
for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following
All Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s))
must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA
Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA
Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant
organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at
least 4-6 weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources
necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal
Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to
develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial
and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always
encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PD(s)/PI(s), visit the Multiple
Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) Policy and submission details in
the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF 424 (R&R)
Application Guide.
To be eligible for an I/START award, a proposed new investigator must be independent of a mentor at the time of award and be at the beginning stages of her/his research career. A proposed new investigator may not have served as the PD(s)/PI(s) on any Public Health-supported research project other than a small grant (R03), an Academic Research Enhancement Award (R15), an exploratory/developmental grant (R21), or certain mentored research career awards directed principally to physicians, dentists, or veterinarians at the beginning of their research career (K01, K08, and K12). Current or past recipients of Independent Scientist and other non-mentored career awards (K02, K04) are not considered new investigators. Established investigators may also be eligible for support through the I/START program if they are incorporating brain imaging methods for the first time in their research programs.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. Resubmission applications may be submitted, according to the NIH Policy on Resubmission Applications from the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.com
Applicants are encouraged to send the letter of intent by email to the email address above but as an alternative the letter may also be sent to:
Director - I/START
Office of Extramural Affairs
National Institute on Drug Abuse/NIH/DHHS
6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 4243, MSC 9550
Bethesda, MD 20892-9550
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate optional components.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Foreign (non-US) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications via Grants.gov, the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the
Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF
424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and
to include a valid PD(s)/PI(s) Commons ID in the credential field will prevent
the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization's profile in the eRA
Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional
information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
The R03 small grant supports discrete, well-defined projects that realistically can be completed in two years and that require limited levels of funding. Because the research project usually is limited, an R03 grant application may not contain extensive detail or discussion. Accordingly, reviewers should evaluate the conceptual framework and general approach to the problem. Appropriate justification for the proposed work can be provided through literature citations, data from other sources, or from investigator-generated data. Preliminary data are not required, particularly in applications proposing pilot or feasibility studies.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? Does the proposed study have the potential to add significantly to our knowledge of the possible effects of drugs of abuse on the CNS or to the imaging tools that can be used in the pursuit of that goal? If submitted by an established investigator, does the proposed study have the potential to substantively contribute to the significance of the applicant's research program?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD(s)/PI(s), do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of
human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members
of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms
of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional
information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
Not Applicable.
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Review assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD(s)/PI(s) will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee's business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS,
CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
Not Applicable.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and
submission, downloading or navigating forms)
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
eRA Commons Help Desk(Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Steven Grant, Ph.D.
Clinical Neuroscience Branch
Division of Clinical Neuroscience and Behavioral Research (DCNBR)
National Institute on Drug Abuse/NIH/DHHS
Room 3170
6001 Executive Blvd
Bethesda, Md 20892-9593
(301) 443-4877 (voice) 301-443-6814 (fax)
e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com
Mark Swieter, Ph.D.
Office of Extramural Affairs
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Telephone: 301-435-1389
Email: email@example.com
Maryellen Connell
Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Telephone: 301- 774-3803
Email: email@example.com
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
| ||||||
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |


text:
Despite the overwhelming negative response to the Research Works Act from the science community, at least as indicated by the faculty blogs John DuPuis links to (what, still no bullet summary, John?), I'm not quite ready to agree with the Library Loon that the shoe is on the other foot. She opines, correctly I believe, that "Faculty don't like to hear 'don't.' Not from librarians, and not even from publishers." One example supporting this claim is this English professor's refusal to sign away his copyright to Oxford University Press. "I am unwilling," he writes, "to countenance such an abridgement of my ability to make the words that I have written more freely available." He maintains that scholarly publications are the work of the author and not the publisher.
However, even if the Research Works Act became law, it wouldn't be telling faculty they can't do something. It would be telling Federal agencies that they couldn't do something, which is a different thing. From the bill text:
No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that–
(1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or
(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work.
As far as I can tell from the text of the bill, though, there's no stipulation that the authors of research articles can't post those articles on their own websites or in institutional repositories. It just says that the government can't force them to do that as a condition of funding.
But, theoretically, the publishers supporting the Research Works Act should want to go further than stopping Federal open access mandates. In the press release opposing the NIH policy that spurred action against it, the Association of American Publishers, they make the following arguments against open access:
When an author asks a publisher to publish a research article, the author agrees to transfer copyright so the publisher will undertake the effort and expense of preparing the article for final publication. The publisher relies on holding copyright to enable it to recoup publication costs and continue to invest in scientific communication. The full benefit of copyright protections is weakened when authors are required to permit NIH to make their journal articles available to the public for free. Moreover, the mandated access policy gives publishers little or no subsequent safeguards from piracy.
Presumably, "the full benefit of copyright protections is weakened when authors" post their work online period, even on their own websites or institutional repositories. How could that not be the case? And if it is the case, then the AAP and others must also be opposed to all such "network dissemination" of research, even if the research isn't publicly funded by a Federal agency.
Thus, theoretically, the anti-OA publishers should be opposed to the institutional open access policies implemented by Harvard and Princeton and others in the past few years. The faculty of both universities supported making their work more accessible. The faculty at Princeton voted unanimously to adopt an open access policy. It's not a mandate, because faculty can seek waivers for particular articles, but it's a sweeping policy that forcefully states the desire to make research publicly accessible and to not give away all rights to publishers. Granted, Harvard and Princeton are private universities, but policies like these still run afoul of the publisher's arguments against Federal mandates. Articles published in journals from Elsevier by leading researchers will also be freely available online.
The final provocation of the faculty will come when publishers start paying for legislation making institutional open access policies and personal "networked dissemination" of one's own research illegal. That will be the moment when faculty start hearing "don't" from publishers, because that will be the moment that publishers try to deliberately and publicly interfere with decisions about their institutions or their research that the faculty have made themselves. When or if that time comes, we might finally see widespread revolt against the worst abuses of commercial scholarly publishers. The question is whether in their drive for profits the offensive publishers will finally be brazen enough to alienate the community that provides all their free content.


text:
On-line proceedings at ACM: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2166929&picked=prox&cfid=71182337&cftoken=68523548.
Program: http://esug.org/data/ESUG2011/IWST/Program_V1.pdf
Proceedings: http://esug.org/data/ESUG2011/IWST/Proceedings.pdf
Slides: http://esug.org/data/ESUG2011/IWST/PRESENTATIONS/
Videos on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBFA36B5236B77AD7
Videos Download: http://esug.org/data/ESUG2011/IWST/Videos/
Submissions are closed
We invite submissions to the International Workshop on Smalltalk Technologies which is held as part of the ESUG 2011 joint event at Edinburgh. (If you want to submit a paper for another part of the conference, go here.)
The goals of the workshop is to create a forum around advances or experience in Smalltalk. We welcome contributions on all aspects, theoretical as well as practical, of Smalltalk related topics such as
The goal of this workshop is to trigger discussion and exchanges ideas. Participants are invited to submit short and not-so short article. We will not enforce any length restriction, however we expect papers to range from 4 pages (short papers describing emerging ideas) to 15 pages (longer and deeper ideas and/or experiment description. Both submissions and final papers must be prepared using the ACM SIGPLAN 10 point format. Templates for Word and LaTeX are available at http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigplan/authorInformation.htm; this site also contains links to useful information on how to write effective submissions.
The best selected papers will appear in the ACM Digital library.
Important Dates:
Program chairs:
Program committee:
Submission: CLOSED


text:
Vladimir Putin has mocked diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine crisis as Russia threatened to disrupt European gas supplies by cutting off sales to Kiev over its unpaid debts.
The Russian president said through his official spokesman that, despite deep disagreements with the West, he did not want a confrontation over Ukraine to spiral into a "new cold war".
Nevertheless Dmitry Peskov ridiculed Western demands for direct talks between the Kremlin and the new Kiev government, claiming that the loss of credibility involved "puts a smile on our face".
The remarks were broadcast during the opening ceremony of the Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi, where the Ukrainian athlete carrying his national flag was given a loud cheer.
Earlier, Gazprom, Russia's state-owned energy giant, said it would start to reduce deliveries to Kiev, a move that would disrupt supplies to Europe. Gazprom said Ukraine had failed to make payments on its £1.2 billion debts.
Ukraine is one of the main transit routes for the continent's gas and the suspension of Gazprom exports in freezing temperatures in 2006 and in 2009 endangered national grids and caused sharp rises in prices. "We can't supply gas for free," Alexey Miller, the head of Gazprom, said. "Either Ukraine settles its debt and pays for current deliveries or the risk arises of a return to the situation we saw at the start of 2009."
Energy experts said Russia had the power to cause problems in markets across Europe, even though peak winter demand was past. "Europe still relies heavily – in some cases 100 per cent – on Russian gas. And if that was interrupted very suddenly, there would be difficulties all round," said Lord Howell, the former energy secretary.
But the White House brushed off the Russian announcement as less of a blow for EU economies than in previous years. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said reduced Russian exports would not have an immediate effect since stocks in Europe were above normal levels because of a mild winter. Structural changes in the industry also mean that less of Europe's gas went through Ukraine.
Russian foreign ministry officials issued the tit-for-tat warnings a day after an EU summit suspended talks on visa-free access for Russians to Europe and threatened sanctions if Moscow did not change course. "Russia will not accept the language of sanctions and threats," a foreign ministry statement said.
Two potential Ukrainian presidential contenders demanded a single, tough Western stance against Russia. Vitali Klitschko, the former boxer, and Petro Poroshenko, a businessman, both of whom are seen as likely candidates in presidential elections in May, used a visit to Paris to shore up European resolve.
Moscow displayed no signs of pulling back in the flashpoint region of Crimea despite the summit outcome and a subsequent telephone conversation between Mr Putin and President Barack Obama.
Russia's parliament made preparations to endorse next week's referendum in Crimea on joining the Russian Federation as a group of Crimean MPs were accorded a hero's welcome in Moscow.
Valentina Matviyenko, the speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament, said the outcome would be accepted "unquestionably". Officials in Kiev retorted that no country in the "civilised world" would recognise a vote for merging with Russia.
Checkpoints manned by Russian soldiers and Crimea militias blocked efforts by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to enter the peninsula.
The OSCE convoy, led by a police car and followed by two buses carrying the observers, returned to the southern city of Kherson to decide if the unarmed monitoring mission can go ahead at all.
Russia said the mission was blocked because it had begun without seeking the traditional consensus support from all the organisation's members.
Russia also scuttled a third ship in the Crimean harbour of Donuzlav to tighten its blockade on the doggedly loyal Ukrainian navy vessels trapped behind Russian lines.
The only bright point of the day came when Ukraine's Paralympic team announced it would participate in the Winter Games in Sochi.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine prime minister, said his government was still pressing for direct talks with Russia to resolve the crisis. He demanded that Russia pull back its forces and stop supporting "separatist" activities inside Ukraine.
"We are ready to build relations with Russia," he said. "But Ukraine will never be a subordinate or branch of Russia."
Mr Yasenyuk also revealed the Kiev and the EU would soon sign an agreement on the political aspects of a strategic accord that fell through late last year.
The collapse of the EU association agreement provoked the mass pro-Western demonstration movement that led to the collapse of the former government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
"It is the matter of weeks now," Mr Yatsenyuk said. "This is the most important decision that the whole country has been waiting for. This is what people were going to the streets for."


text:
An herb used in traditional medicine by many Middle Eastern countries may help in the fight against pancreatic cancer, one of the most difficult cancers to treat. Researchers at the Kimmel Cancer at Jefferson in Philadelphia have found that thymoquinone, an extract of nigella sativa seed oil, blocked pancreatic cancer cell growth and killed the cells by enhancing the process of programmed cell death.
While the studies are in the early stages, the findings suggest that thymoquinone could eventually have some use as a preventative strategy in patients who have gone through surgery and chemotherapy or in individuals who are at a high risk of developing cancer.
According to Hwyda Arafat, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of Surgery at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, nigella sativa helps treat a broad array of diseases, including some immune and inflammatory disorders. Previous studies also have shown anticancer activity in prostate and colon cancers, as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects.
Using a human pancreatic cancer cell line, she and her team found that adding thymoquinone killed approximately 80 percent of the cancer cells. They demonstrated that thymoquinone triggered programmed cell death in the cells, and that a number of important genes, including p53, Bax, bcl-2 and p21, were affected. The researchers found that expression of p53, a tumor suppressor gene, and Bax, a gene that promotes programmed cell death, was increased, while bcl-2, which blocks such cell death, was decreased. The p21 gene, which is involved in the regulation of different phases of the cell cycle, was substantially increased. She presents her findings May 18 at the Digestive Disease Week in San Diego.
Dr. Arafat and her co-workers also found that thymoquinone caused "epigenetic" changes in pancreatic cancer cells, modifying the cells' DNA. She explains that these changes involve adding acetyl groups to the DNA structure, specifically to blocks of proteins called histones. This "acetylation" process can be important for genes to be read and translated into proteins. In this case, it could involve the genes that are key to initiating programmed cell death.
"We looked at the status of the histones and found surprisingly that thymoquinone increased the acetylation process," Dr. Arafat says. "We never anticipated that."
At the same time, adding thymoquinone to pancreatic cancer cells reduced the production and activity of enzymes called histone deacetylases (HDACs), which remove the acetyl groups from the histone proteins, halting the gene transcription process. Dr. Arafat notes that HDAC inhibitors are a "hot" new class of drugs that interfere with the function of histone deacetylases, and is being studied as a treatment for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Finding that thymoquinone functions as an HDAC inhibitor, she says, "was very remarkable and really exciting."
Pancreatic cancer, the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in this country, takes some 34,000 lives a year. The disease frequently is detected after it has spread and only 4 percent of individuals with pancreatic cancer live for five years after diagnosis.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Thomas Jefferson University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Cite This Page:


text:
- Anil Pharande, Chairman – Pharande Spaces
Pharande Spaces: Rainwater Harvesting: Not Just an Option but A Necessity
Deforestation has further compounded the deficiency of water, as this causes regional rain to eventually become unpredictable. Several areas are critically affected by a dearth of usable water – a city like Pune is, actually, a prime example of the happening throughout India.
More and more of the world's burgeoning populations will be moving to urban areas in the years to come. As a result of accelerated property development in our cities, the greatest requirement for critical resources such as water is focused in urban areas. As a consequence, multistory residential complexes are being constructed at an extremely rapid speed.
The earth's surface is 70% water; yet, very little of this is actually usable or drinkable by humans. It is very likely that we will shortly reach a stage when the quantity of useable water present on the earth's surface isn't sufficient to satisfy all of the requirements of the development occurring to accommodate the growing population.
Rainwater harvesting is the solitary realistic option to counter the growing menace of rapid water depletion - and this real and present option is definitely catching on in our cities. Rainwater harvesting involves accumulating, filtering and storing rainwater to be utilized for assorted industrial and residential purposes.
Rainwater is a clean, free source of potable water. Rainwater harvesting used in residential properties, which involves trapping rainwater from roofs and directing it into underground storage tanks or cisterns, can satisfy 50% of a regular family's water needs.
The truth is, rainwater harvesting isn't just a strategy to make maximum use of the natural resource - it also has minimal environmental impact. Naturally, it leads to substantial price savings on recurring water charges in residential buildings. In a city like Pune, a huge number of residential societies are dependent on expensive water tankers which extract 'hard' water from borewells - a process which further depletes ground water levels and causes all kinds of associated problems to the environment.
Urban water supply calls for pumping stations in addition to putting up treatment plants and supply conduits. With the rate of increase in urban population, city planning authorities cannot match utilities in the majority of Indian cities. Engineers and geologists are constantly fighting to discover new sources of water.
With borewell shafts going deeper as the hunt for more water continues in cities like Pune, water supply can actually be significantly supplemented by rainwater and decrease the pressure on the usual water supply.
When rainwater is harnessed in a housing complex, it can be utilized for assorted non-drinking functions that call for substantial volumes of water. Because rainwater can complement the traditional water supply system, this means considerably reduced utility bills.
Rainwater harvesting is equally appropriate for large manufacturing units that use up substantial amounts of water. Such industries can reduce the pressure on groundwater by making use of rainwater for all their requirements.
A perfect fallback position
Climate change has caused significant disruptions in the weather patterns in lots of Indian cities, resulting is decreased rainfall. Rainwater can be collected, stored and used during drought seasons to complement the ordinary water supply. In cities like Mumbai and Pune, the dreaded bane of rationing and water shortage is mitigated with rainwater harvesting, which also reduces the dependence on dams and water reservoirs.
When rainwater harvesting systems are used by a sufficient saturation of residential buildings in a city, there is a substantial drop in pressure on drainage systems, thereby reducing the possibility of floods, soil erosion, and surface run-offs. Rainwater harvesting is a perfect solution especially in low-lying regions, which are usually prone to floods due to over-taxed drainage systems.
The use of rainwater harvesting systems allows groundwater levels to recharge, which in turn aids in enhancing urban greenery; in fact, this is actually the sole dependable means of having green places without leeching away from the direly needed water supplies within urban areas.
Simple to set up and use
Rainwater harvesting systems are simple to put up and operate. There is absolutely no requirement for the complicated purifying systems which need to be applied to cleanse groundwater, since rainwater is pure. Rainwater collection systems use modern yet extremely simple technology, and their care simply involves occasional cleaning of pipes and the storage tanks to ensure the rainwater gathered is not contaminated.
Actually, rainwater harvesting can be used by anyone. Installation of gutters is step one for buildings that lack them, together with a filtration system to make certain that any other sort of debris or leaves will not find their way into the storage tanks. Safety precautions include having locking bars or lids to stop the breeding of mosquitoes or other forms of pollution of the stored water. Catchment areas in a city may comprise paved regions for example roads and car parks, where water may be picked for several non-drinking purposes.
Need for more government support
Most of the municipality areas of cities like Pune have a huge number of housing projects which don't have the required rainwater pits. In quite a few cases, the lack of space and the overall design of the project may not make rainwater harvesting pits feasible at all – but where it is possible, no effort should be spared to create them and put rainwater harvesting systems in place. New apartment projects must, of course, be engineered from the world 'go' to incorporate rainwater harvesting systems.
While all such measures have been implemented in the more progressive PCMC (Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation) of Pune, the speed at which the Pune Municipal Corporation is moving on this front leaves a lot to be desired. Rainwater harvesting is a standard feature in PCMC's large integrated townships.
As rain is becoming noticeably scantier, the government has already begun undertaking measures to encourage residential societies, educational institutions, and similar buildings to optimize water use and exercise better principles of water economy.
The rapid, yet necessary proliferation of paved areas and roads in our cities is preventing the proper percolation of rainwater into the ground, and causing water bottlenecks on the outskirts. Establishing regularly spaced rainwater harvesting pits in urban localities is definitely the way to go, and must be implemented in cities like Pune without further delay. Additionally, the city authorities must put in greater efforts to educate citizens about the benefits and implementation of rainwater harvesting.
About The Author:
Anil Pharande is Chairman of Pharande Spaces, a leading construction and development firm that develops township properties in West Pune. Pharande Promoters & Builders, the flagship company of Pharande Spaces and an ISO 9001-2000 certified company, is a pioneer in the PCMC area offering a diverse range of real estate products catering especially to the 42 sectors of Pradhikaran. The luxury township Puneville at Punavale in West Pune is among the company's latest premium offerings. Woodsville in Moshi is another highly successful PCMC-based township by Pharande Spaces which is now in its 3rd phase.


text:
"An especially big thank you goes out to our VFW District 2 Commander, John Chrzanowski, who personally met with both posts, discovered that wrong information was given to the Garfield Post that the Fair Lawn Post was closing and is currently working with both commanders to see that the cannon is returned," Boone said.
"I am ever thankful that this situation was worked out in such a wonderful way."
Members of Fair Lawn VFW Post 281 were shocked to find the cannon suddenly gone.
Longtime Commander Harvey Mayer, who died a decade ago, worked long and hard to get the cannon on loan through a special U.S. Army program that makes disabled American military machinery available to museums, veteran service organizations, parks and others, Boone said.
"A special thank you to all who have shared their thoughts, concern & efforts in helping us work this situation out," he said Thursday night. "Fair Lawn -- you are still the best town ever!"
The U.S. Army Donations Program, launched 20 years ago, "is responsible for 407,595 pieces of property valued at $2.6 billion across 33,000 organizations in 14 countries," according to the US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management.
"These artifacts range from revolutionary war cannons to M1 Abrams tanks," TACOM says. "Proudly placed at historical museums, sites of remembrance and more, each piece stands to commemorate those who served, educate those who will serve, and provide the public a piece of military history they can touch and see."
"The program is protected by law, under Title 10, U.S. Code 2572, which states organizations that qualify can conditionally receive a loan of a piece of Army combat equipment that is no longer in use," explained Audrey Clarke, chief of the Army Donations Program.
"When all other functions are exhausted, the item will undergo a limited demilitarization process, guaranteeing the machinery can no longer be used for its intended function," TACOM says. "Essentially, the item transforms from a weapon to a relic.
"It can then be repurposed into small monuments honoring the U.S. military and U.S. veterans around the world."
Click here to follow Daily Voice Fair Lawn-Glen Rock and receive free news updates.


text:
Billy Gibbons talks ZZ Top: The Complete Studio Albums (1970-1990)
Billy Gibbons discusses the 10-disc ZZ Top box set
In the early fall of 1970, three Houston-based, boogie-and-blues-loving musicians, guitarist-singer Billy Gibbons, bassist-singer Dusty Hill and drummer Frank Beard, walked into Robin Hood Studios in the neighboring city of Tyler to see if their "little ol' band from Texas" had what it took to make an honest-to-goodness record album.
"We were three guys, we had three chords, and the future was wide open," says Gibbons. "We called the record 'ZZ Top's First Album' because we wanted everyone to know that there would be more. We weren't certain if we'd get another chance in the studio, but we had high hopes."
On 10 June, 43 years after the release of ZZ Top's First Album, Warner Bros. will issue the 10-disc box set ZZ Top: The Complete Studio Albums (1970-1990), which traces the band's development from a raw and feisty blues club act to a groundbreaking, mainstream-rock, hit-making powerhouse.
"It's as close as I've gotten to instant time travel," Gibbons says of the box set. "Taking two decades of expression and compressing them into one ready, at-your-fingertips experience is pretty remarkable."
For Gibbons, one of the high cards of the package is that each album's artwork has been faithfully reproduced, including the gatefold sleeve designs used for 1973's Tres Hombres and 1976's Tejas, along with the original mixes. "Getting the unchanged experience of each release with the original mixes is such a cool deal," says Gibbons. "This is the way the albums were intended to be heard."
All 10 albums in the set were produced by Bill Ham, who, until 2006, also functioned as ZZ Top's manager and main image-maker. Gibbons says that the importance of Ham cannot be overstated. "I have to hand it to a guy who was willing to take on three rowdy and reckless teenagers and try to navigate the musical waters with them," he notes. "The task of maintaining forward motion was certainly a challenge. Bill had a masterful sense of vision, and he brought us to the point of delivering everything that was available."
On the following pages, Gibbons reflects on the recording of all 10 records contained in ZZ Top: The Complete Studio Albums (1970-1990).
ZZ Top's First Album (1971)
"Well, we were sure hoping that there would be a second album. The art director who had stepped into ZZ Top's world was a gentleman named Bill Narum, an extremely talented guy who had a handiness with the paintbrush and an awareness of the big picture, especially when it came to the importance of music in people's lives.
"Mr. Narum saw the importance of titling ZZ Top's first album, and he said, 'Make it known that you've provided the world with an offering of what you guys do, and it's just the first one.' And we said, 'Sure. That sounds fine with us.' And so it became ZZ Top's First Album.
"We had been together for about six months and were knocking around the bar scene, playing all the usual funky joints. We took the studio on as an extension of the stage show. The basics were all of us playing together in one room, but we didn't want to turn our backs on contemporary recording techniques. To give our sound as much presence and support as possible, we became a little more than a three piece with the advantages of overdubbing. It was the natural kind of support – some rhythm guitar parts, a little bit of texture. That was about it."
Rio Grande Mud (1972)
"The underlying comfort factor was that we were recording in Texas. There was a tremendous amount of shared understanding that we had with the engineer, Robin 'Hood' Brian. He owned and operated the studio. Being a musician himself, he had a lot of empathy for anybody who wandered into his place. He knew how to make everyone feel at home.
"Robin did a lot to make sure we didn't experience the dreaded 'red light fever.' When you're a bunch of guys in a band playing clubs and bars, a studio can be a cold, antiseptic and intimidating place. We were still getting used to the dichotomy of the two.
"It was the first record that brought us into step with the writing experience. We started documenting events as they happened to us on the road; all of these elements went into the songwriting notebook. As we went along, we were keeping track of skeleton ideas as they popped up. The craft was certainly developing."
Tres Hombres (1973)
"It was interesting: The third go-round was again recorded in Texas, but we accepted an invitation from a gentleman named Waltaire Baldwin – he spelled his first name differently – to appear at a famous event in Memphis called the Overton Park Blues Festival. Following that performance, we met a guy named 'Memphis' Robert Johnson, who told us that Led Zeppelin had just finished mixing an album in town – maybe we should do the same?
"So that's what we did. We took our tapes from Texas and brought them to Ardent Recording, turned them over, and the end result became Tres Hombres, which yielded our first Top 10 with Le Grange.
"We had never played that song live. It was kind of a haphazard, last-minute thought that came together in all of three minutes. We were waiting for the engineer to complete his house cleaning chores, and we were jamming out. At one point, we looked through the glass and the guy was waving his arms, signaling us to continue on. The song just fell into place.
"We could tell that we had something special. The record became quite the turning point for us. The success was handwriting on the wall, because from that point we became honorary citizens of Memphis."
Fandango! (1975)
"The live capture wound up being in the can first. We had enough live material to make up one side of the disc, so we decided to go with the unusual move of making the album half live, half studio. It turned out to be a winning combination for us.
"One of the songs that we were playing at shows, another one of those 'catch-it-in-three-minute' tunes, was Tush. We had gone down to Alabama, and it started to take shape with the riff. As for the lyrics, well, it's not exactly Bob Dylan. [Laughs] That one we recorded in the studio.
"Tush felt good from a musician standpoint. But you know, you can never tell what's going to be a hit or not. We were enjoying the recording experience, figuring out how to grab a moment and making it repeatable."
Tejas (1976)
"It's fair to say that this is a transitional record, although I'm not really sure what we were transitioning from and what we were becoming. [Laughs] It may be representative of how rapidly things were changing in the studio.
"The equipment was becoming more modernized, and the way that music was being recorded was different – things were moving faster. It was still pre-digital, but there was better gear that was more readily available. We made use of it all.
"This period was the wrinkle that kind of suggested what was to come, and change would become a necessary part of the ZZ Top fabric."
Degüello (1979)
"By this time, Memphis had made its mark with us in a really positive way. I don't think that anyone can go there and not be affected by all of the great music, especially stuff from the Stax/Volt era.
"Before we left Memphis, the song I Thank You came on the car radio. Isaac Hayes played this badass clavinet part that made the Sam & Dave version so distinctive. I was in the studio, talking to the engineer, and I remarked about how magical the sound of the clavinet was on that song, and he said, 'Well, lo and behold, that very same clavinet is right out there in the other room.' I said, 'Well, that's it. We're going to have to incorporate it in our version.'
"ZZ Top, in the studio, sometimes became a five and six-piece band, by way of whatever we were adding to the sound. One of the key pieces here was the use of that clavinet. We put it on I Thank You, Cheap Sunglasses – it started showing up on a lot of tracks.
"Sometimes change is hard to take for some people, but we knew how far we could push things for our fans. Also, we knew that we had to go out and do the songs live, so we avoided any elements that would have made that impossible."
El Loco (1981)
"This was a really interesting turning point. We had befriended somebody who would become an influential associate, a guy named Linden Hudson. He was a gifted songwriter and had production skills that were leading the pack at times. He brought some elements to the forefront that helped reshape what ZZ Top were doing, starting in the studio and eventually to the live stage.
"Linden had no fear and was eager to experiment in ways that would frighten most bands. But we followed suit, and the synthesizers started to show up on record. Manufacturers were looking for ways to stimulate sales, and these instruments started appearing on the market.
"One of our favorite tracks was Groovy Little Hippie Pad. Right at the very opening, there it is – the heavy sound of a synthesizer. For us, there was no turning back."
Eliminator (1983)
"The wheels were turning, the scenery was changing, and we were having a field day playing around with these crazy machines that were making wicked sounds. The funny thing was, we had no training at all; these instruments were popping up, and we just took to them.
"That's really the best way you can discover new sounds anyway. The first thing we did was throw away the instruction manuals, and then we started twisting knobs until we said, 'That's what ZZ Top should sound like.'
"Eliminator also marked the point when we paid serious attention to timing and tempos. This became a benchmark that we aspired to. Once the groove was laid down, we learned how to stand on it. That's one of the elements that makes Eliminator stand out in a classic sense; all of those tracks were timed and tuned very tight.
"Legs and Sharp Dressed Man started with their titles – they were concepts. Gimme All Your Lovin', which was really the first single that made it off the record, started with the music. It went through a bunch of different titles and themes; over the course of three months, we had five or six versions going on before we figured it all out.
"The heaviness of the synthesizers created a nice platform that allowed the guitar to stand on its own. I think it's because synths could play an octave below a bass guitar; there was a nice full bed of sound that contrasted with any of my guitar parts.
"Bands like Depeche Mode were leading the synthesizer charge at this time. What's interesting is, Joe Hardy and I received an invitation from them recently to remix one of their new songs, Soothe My Soul. Dave Gahan told me they were looking for a little 'Texas mud' to go with the electronica. Funny how things go around in circles sometimes."
Afterburner (1985)
"The runaway success of Eliminator really put us on the burner to meet or beat that which had gone before. Having the experience of experimentation led us quite easily to the next wave of sensibilities. There was some great stuff that inspired the follow-ups.
"Planet Of Women, Rough Boy, Sleeping Bag – there's some really cool tunes here. It was all in good fun and in keeping with the spirit that Eliminator had established and broke open for us.
"The synths were very much in the analogue domain. Robert Moog was making available a lot of the technology that had broken through under his guidance. Suddenly, you could walk into a music store, throw down some cash and be ready to rock. The one model that we used quite a bit was the Moog Source; it's the device that provided the super-low sound. Man, that was great.
"Even though we taught ourselves to use the synths, there was a pretty hard learning curve required to work them. They weren't quite as user-friendly as everything we have today. Many late-night hours we spent twisting knobs and going through trial-and-error – you twisted one knob and it affected everything else. Once we landed on something, we left well enough alone."
Recycler (1990)
"The forward motion stimulated by Eliminator carried over onto Afterburner and wound up with Recycler, and as had been the case, it rested on the backbone of timing and tuning.
"This was probably the last hardcore synth-styled release before we began drifting back to the roots. By this time, we were actually looking forward to the studio experience. Whatever was state of the art, it was there on the floor at Ardent Recording. They were always first to embrace it and make it available to their clients.
"My Head's In Mississippi is representative of where we were headed, back to the boogie and groove. That song's in the current lineup, too – we played it last night, and we'll play it tonight."